Less than a week after the Supreme Court’s 8–1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, which held that restricting a therapist’s ability to engage in exploratory therapy with gay or transgender-identified clients constitutes viewpoint discrimination, California lawmakers introduced SB 934. The bill is deliberately vague, packed with slippery language, and clearly designed to sidestep the Court while advancing a broader agenda. During legislative hearings, State Senator Scott Wiener inadvertently exposed the bill’s contradictions through his own explanations.
California SB 934 will allow patients to sue mental health providers for malpractice if their therapist does not immediately affirm their trans or gender identity. It will extend the statute of limitations for these lawsuits, allowing victims to seek civil remedies years or even decades after the counseling occurred. The message to therapists is clear: affirm immediately or risk being branded a “conversion therapist” and dragged into Court.
Any rational person would wonder how this bill could be considered. This is what happens when language has been obfuscated, as the term “conversion therapy” has been weaponized by gay and trans activists. The notion of conversion therapy sounds horrible and cruel, bringing to mind electric shock treatments and other abusive interventions. However, its meaning has been expanded to include any therapeutic approach that does not begin with immediate affirmation of a client’s stated identity.
During legislative hearings, riveting testimony from a 23-year-old gay man, Jonnie Skinner, cut right through the rhetoric. Skinner described being placed on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as a minor. He testified that these interventions have permanently affected his physical development and sexual function, sharing deeply personal details about the long-term impact, including his inability to achieve an orgasm. He is a human casualty of so-called "gender affirming care."
Skinner is not an isolated case, nor did he experience a side effect. Stunting genital growth is the intended effect of Lupron, the drug most commonly used to block puberty. In fact, trans-identified Dr. Marci Bowers, former WPATH president and surgeon of TV personality Jazz Jennings, was recorded saying, “Every child who was truly blocked at Tanner stage 2 has never experienced orgasm and likely never will. I mean, it’s really about zero.”
Following Skinner’s testimony, Senator Anna Caballero seemed genuinely shaken by what she had heard and emphasized her interest in protecting children. She noted that she had previously understood the bill as targeting clearly harmful therapeutic practices and began questioning whether its language accurately reflected that goal.
When pressed to define “conversion therapy,” Wiener described it as an effort to change someone’s identity. Yet, the bill itself uses sweeping language, such as “change efforts," that can easily encompass ordinary therapeutic exploration.
Then came the bald-faced lie. Wiener insisted the bill does not prevent therapists from exploring gender or sexuality—but it actually punishes outcomes that don’t align with immediate affirmation. Exploration, by its very nature, can lead to change, so which is it? You can explore, but only if it leads in one of the approved directions.
To seem less radical, Weiner tried to distance the bill from medical interventions. But that claim collapses under scrutiny. If therapy is restricted to affirmation-only, the pathway is obvious: puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery. We have witnessed Weiner’s strong support for medicalizing children with bills such as SB 107, a bill that allows for out-of-state minors to enter California and receive cross-sex hormones and surgeries without parental consent, funded by public dollars.
Even while this is happening, mounting data from Europe, including a new study out of Finland, raises serious questions about long-term mental health outcomes. None of it seems to slow the push.
This is how radical policies get passed: blur the language, redefine the terms, and rely on confusion to carry the argument. SB 934 doesn’t clarify; it obscures. It doesn’t protect therapy; it restricts it. While SB 934 is likely to pass, it was momentous to see Weiner stumble and stutter as he realized that his fake facade of kindness and inclusion was beginning to crack.
Pamela Garfield-Jaeger is a regular contributor to Human Events. She is the author of “A Practical Response to Gender Distress” and “Froggy Girl." You can find her on X as @pgarfieldjaeger and IG as @the.truthfultherapist.
