Gender ideology, specifically that of transgenderism and its impact on minors, has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court — again.

On Monday, SCOTUS took up a case involving a challenge from a counselor against a Colorado law banning so-called “conversion therapy” for minors identifying as LGBT. However, as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins clarified on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch,” while “the legacy media likes to call it conversion therapy … it’s really a ban on any conversation that doesn’t align with the Left’s radical gender ideology.”

Colorado’s ban states that counselors may not attempt to “change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” But in another light, Perkins emphasized how the law really just “prohibits licensed counselors from having conversations with minors” who are questioning their gender and want to transition. The challenge came from a Christian therapist named Kaley Chiles, who argued that the law violates her freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Notably, this court case was heard by SCOTUS only months after they heard oral arguments for the Skrmetti case out of Tennessee, which aims to ban experimental and irreversible drugs and surgeries for minors. Given the weight of both cases and their related implications for minors’ well-being, debate is swirling about how the court will rule: prioritizing the protection of children or allowing practices experts argue only facilitates harm.

Concerning the Colorado case, Perkins asked, “Will the Supreme Court see through the Left’s efforts to silence and villainize counselors who are simply trying to help young people navigate through gender dysphoria?” Joining in Tuesday’s conversation was Dr. Jennifer Bauwens, a researcher, clinician, and FRC’s director of the Center for Family Studies.

Ultimately, she stated, “what this case is addressing is the one direction of free speech, right?” As Bauwens explained, those who want to keep the ban on counseling minors are, in effect, saying “as long as you’re offering gender affirming or some kind of affirming conversation to a gender identity — a false identity — then it’s okay. But if you are a counselor who believes that sex is binary, and you can’t change it … then that speech is prohibited” — at least according to the Colorado law.

But at the end of the day, she added, “we’re talking about conversations.” Bauwens emphasized that though “conversion therapy … sounds very intense … it’s not.” Mainstream media portrays it as “shocking people [with electrodes and] doing all these horrific things,” but “we already have laws against” those practices. What is being addressed here, she emphasized, is being able to talk to a client, understand what is going on in their life, and determining the best path forward.

Walt Heyer, a detransitioner and senior fellow at FRC, often asked his clients, “What caused you to stop liking who you are?” And while most counselors won’t be “that blunt,” Bauwens noted, “in essence, the heart of this question is, ‘What’s going on with you that you’re deciding to shed your God-given identity?”

“So,” Perkins dryly mused, “is it safe to say the media has been deceptive in the way it’s covered this topic?” Bauwens replied, “I know it’s shocking, but I would say so.”

As these two cases make their way through the judicial process, garnering lots of attention from both sides of the political aisle, there are roughly 26 states that already have laws in place protecting minors from experimental gender procedures. “And the reason we call them experimental,” Perkins stated, “is because they were not designed for the application that they’re being used for. … [W]e have surgeries that are irreversible, and [when] you start cutting off body parts, you can’t put them back.”

As Perkins added, “help me understand” why some people are not okay with children being guided through gender dysphoria through conversation, but they are okay with cutting off healthy body parts. According to Bauwens, it’s a matter of ignoring reality. “If you’re looking at the science alone,” she said, “you’re going to side with the” case that protects youth. And “you’re going to say counselors have a right to investigate what are the real causes. Because the science is there to say that these procedures are not helping kids’ mental health. It’s actually harming.”

Additionally, she highlighted how the statistics have found that roughly 85% of minors who are “left alone” end up not going through with the gender transition process. And as Perkins and Bauwens further discussed, it’s the conversations that are most helpful because that is where cases of trauma and abuse are often discovered, which helps explain the mental state of the client. Ultimately, Bauwens argued, “a curious counselor should be investigating. A curious researcher or academic should be asking questions.”

“I would definitely say this is something to pray about,” Perkins stated. And “this is a big deal, because the Trump administration, by executive order, has prohibited within its realm of authority the gender reassignment surgeries.” Even so, there are still states defying that order, which “is quite significant going forward as to what will be the policy of our nation.” And at the heart of the matter, Perkins noted, is this question: “Can we help kids by working through these issues, or are we going to just allow them to start cutting off body parts and masquerading as a person of the opposite gender?”

“[W]e’re at a pivotal moment as a society,” Perkins concluded. A moment concerning “whether or not we’re going to go forward based upon truth or based upon a lie that deceives and, ultimately, destroys.”