Taking Conversations Into the Real World: Eliza Mondegreen Interviews Corinna Cohn

Corinna Cohn is a writer, podcaster, and activist from Indiana. Corinna was diagnosed with gender identity disorder at age 15 and underwent surgical transition at age 19. In 2019, Corinna became involved in patient advocacy, and in 2022 began organizing to support legislation that regulates gender medicalization of minors. Corinna has met with legislators and given testimony in Indiana, Texas, and Ohio.

Eliza Mondegreen: As an American, it’s hard not to despair at the political polarization around gender. I have no idea how we get from where we are to the serious dialogue we need to have about how to protect children and vulnerable adults from what many of us see as a medical scandal. How would you characterize the state of the gender debate in the US today?

Corinna Cohn: There’s an axis of powers in the US who have successfully framed the topic of medicalizing gender identity around a set of ideas designed to polarize the debate. Terms like “trans kids” and “gender affirming care” did not exist in the public discourse even ten years ago, but you can trace how a small group of organizations and individuals, with the complicity of a guileless media, have managed to dictate how the topic of medical regulation for minors is reported to the general public. Most Americans, upon learning what is specifically happening to children, understand that this is not “life-saving care,” but unfortunately, the actual facts have been suppressed.

However, I believe that the truth will out. Not cosmic truth, but actual data about the efficacy of these procedures as they’re applied to children. It’s inevitable, and my guess is that we’re going to find a lack of evidence that these procedures are safe or effective. 

EM: For a self-confessed homebody, you’ve spent much of the last year on the road, meeting with legislators, attending protests, and testifying in statehouses across the United States to advocate for a more cautious approach to gender-questioning youth. What led you to take this step?

CC: I feel that I must share my experiences, ambivalent though I may be about them, to help inform other people about the risks and sacrifices of this pathway through the world. There is a lot of misinformation leading families to agree to perform medical sex changes on their children, and unfortunately there are too many policymakers out there who are informed only by activist messaging. As one of very few people in the world who has been through this from a young age and into middle age, I have a duty to help inform other people.

EM: Tell me about your life on the road. What have you learned? Who listens to you and why? Who doesn’t want to listen to what you have to say? In your experience, what messages cross political divides? What are the major barriers to shared understanding?

CC: When I’m traveling to talk about the medicalization of gender identity, it’s important for me to talk to people who are on the other side and try to find some common ground. A few months ago, when I was in Austin, I asked to sit with a group of clergy members who had shown up to oppose SB 14, which regulated sex changes for children. I listened to their points and they engaged with mine. One area we all agreed is that minors should not be having surgeries, but we disagreed about hormones. I was able to learn that this group was passionate about defending what they thought were “trans rights,” but that they were woefully ignorant about the state of the medicine. For instance, despite several of them having adult children who identified as transgender, nobody among the group had ever heard of WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health).

From my conversation with the clergy, I came to understand that there are two worldviews that can never meet up. My position is that there is no data supporting the practice of medicalizing children, and given the risks to both physical and mental health, that the procedures should be heavily regulated. The position of the clergy is that children are seeking authenticity of identity, and that any barriers to medicalization are tantamount to oppression. These views can never be reconciled, but I hope that when the data casts more light on the issue, we can all be led by evidence.

EM: How do you feel after having so many such conversations? Are you more optimistic about the future or less?

CC: It’s going to be a difficult few years ahead for those of us opposing sex changes for children. There are so many people who have a strong religious sense of what is happening, to the point where the idea of the “trans child” is even being incorporated into church doctrines. We may need to hear the narratives of many more people whose lives have been hurt by these practices before the zealots are able to introspect and develop doubt.

EM: You’ve written recently about your experiences in Texas advocating for a bill that would have expanded health insurance coverage for detransitioners and people who experience medical complications from transition-related procedures. Could you tell me more about what happened with House Bill 3502?

CC: House Bill 3502 would have required insurance companies that offer medical transition coverage to also cover reconstructive surgeries and ongoing health care. The bill was able to pass out of committee with little opposition, but it was killed during the second reading through a process called “chubbing,” which is a delaying tactic that prevents bills from advancing if they’re not read before a certain deadline. HB 3502 was literally seconds away from making it past the deadline, but the Democrats succeeded in killing it, and they cheered and congratulated themselves on their success. Although this bill would have helped every person who has ever medically transitioned, the Democrats wanted to stick their fingers in the eyes of the Republicans because of the other trans-related bills that were already well on their way to passing. It was petty of the Democrats, but this is also politics.

EM: What do you think is going on inside the minds of Democratic policymakers who voted down HB 3502 (and similar bills)?

CC: Democratic politics, even at the state level, and even in a red state like Texas (or maybe because it’s a red state) have been dominated by national identity-based political activist groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). These groups have promised to punish Democratic politicians who step too far out of line by coordinating to deny campaign funds or even by funding primary campaign challengers. For example, Representative Shawn Theirry will face a primary challenger as retribution for her vote in support of SB 14. The Democrats are kept strictly in line by a tiny group of powerful interests. It’s tough to pretend that it’s the people’s party anymore.

EM: While blue states like California pass laws that create a free-for-all for youth seeking transition, red states like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee are moving in the opposite direction, cracking down on youth transition, limiting Medicaid coverage for transition-related procedures, and in some cases changing the requirements for adults seeking transition. Bills that require patients to be age 18 or older in order to access hormonal and surgical interventions are controversial. Where do you stand on bills that raise the minimum age for transition-related interventions and why?

CC: In a free society that cares about the health and welfare of its children, there must be age limits for sex change medications and procedures, but this means that after some point of maturity, we should trust adults to make decisions for themselves. Whether that age is 18 or 21 is a matter for debate, but unless we’re prepared to invite government interference in our other personal decisions, we must draw the line somewhere and then allow people to seek their own higher good.

EM: You’ve also spent much of the last year pointing out worrying signs of radicalization in trans communities, like the promotion of “trans genocide” narratives and the embrace of slogans like “DEATH BEFORE DETRANSITION.” What are you seeing? Where do you think this is headed? What do you wish you could say to young people wrapped up in this belief system?

CC: The propaganda around “trans genocide” is shameful. I have directly asked some of the individuals who promote these slogans to be circumspect about the impressionability of young people, many of whose actions are guided more by passion than reason. I’m worried that it’s not possible to penetrate into this echo chamber, and that we’re likely to see more violent events like the school shootings carried out by trans-identified young people that we saw in Tennessee and Colorado.

EM: What advice do you have for other Americans trying to organize against the imposition of transgender ideology in medicine, schools, and civic life? How do we make the best of what often feels like an impossible situation?

CC: For anyone who cares about these issues, the most important thing to do is to take these conversations into the real world. If you cannot talk to your friends or family about your concerns—if all you are doing is complaining into your own echo chamber on social media—then you’re not making any difference. Once you bring these conversations into the real world, however, you have a chance of shattering the spiral of silence that’s making it possible for these types of harms to perpetuate through society.

---