Elon Musk Is Trying to Rob His Trans Daughter of Her Inspiring Story

In recent weeks, Elon Musk’s comments about his transgender daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson, have reignited debates about gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Musk claimed he was “tricked” into supporting his child’s transition and that the “woke mind virus” had effectively killed his “son.” However, Wilson’s own words and experiences tell a starkly different story—one that underscores the life-changing benefits of gender-affirming care and the importance of listening to transgender individuals themselves.

Musk’s high-profile statements come at a time when several U.S. states and entire countries are pushing to criminalize gender-affirming treatments for minors, and some political commentators are suggesting that adopting anti-transgender stances could be electorally advantageous. Yet these positions fly in the face of established medical consensus and the lived experiences of transgender individuals like Wilson.

In this article, I’ll examine why Elon Musk is wrong about his daughter and gender-affirming care, drawing on Wilson’s own statements, scientific research, and expert medical opinions. I’ll explore how Wilson’s story actually provides compelling evidence for the positive outcomes of gender-affirming care and why political efforts to restrict such care are not only cruel but fundamentally misguided. Ultimately, I’ll make the case that medical decisions—whether regarding gender-affirming treatments or other personal health matters, such as abortion—are best left to patients, their doctors, and in the case of minors, their parents, rather than being dictated by government legislation or political expediency.

Wilson’s story provides a powerful counterpoint to her father’s claims. Far from being “killed” by gender-affirming care, Wilson is a 20-year-old college student who has found the strength to speak out against misinformation about her own life.

In her first public interview , Wilson directly challenged Musk’s narrative. “I think he was under the assumption that I wasn’t going to say anything and I would just let this go unchallenged,” she stated. “Which I’m not going to do, because if you’re going to lie about me, like, blatantly to an audience of millions, I’m not just gonna let that slide.”

Wilson’s account of her relationship with Musk starkly contrasts with his public statements. She described him as an absent father, stating, “He was there, I want to say, maybe 10% of the time. That’s generous.” When he was present, Vivian recalls him as “cold,” “very quick to anger,” and “uncaring and narcissistic.” She recounts instances of Musk berating her for exhibiting feminine traits, including one in fourth grade where he “was constantly yelling at me viciously because my voice was too high.”

Contrary to Musk’s claim of being tricked into authorizing her treatment, Wilson asserts that he was fully informed when he consented to her gender-affirming care at age 16. She states, “He was not by any means tricked. He knew the full side effects,” explaining that Musk read the medical forms at least twice before signing them.

Her journey also illuminates the typical timeline of gender identity realization and disclosure. She came out twice: first as gay in eighth grade and then as transgender at 16. This aligns with research showing that many transgender individuals realize their identity years before disclosing it to others, countering notions of sudden or externally influenced gender identity changes.

The positive impact of gender-affirming care is evident in Wilson’s ability to live authentically. She emphasizes her autonomy and self-determination, stating, “I am an adult. I am 20 years old. I am not a child. My life should be defined by my own choices.” This sentiment echoes the goals of gender-affirming care: to allow individuals to live as their true selves and make informed decisions about their bodies and identities.

Wilson’s experience also highlights the crucial role of family support. While her relationship with Musk is strained, she speaks positively about her mother’s support: “She’s very supportive. I love her a lot.” This underscores the importance of accepting and affirming parents in the well-being of transgender youth, a factor consistently emphasized in research on outcomes for transgender individuals.

Moreover, Wilson’s ability to pursue higher education and advocate for herself demonstrates resilience and personal growth. Her willingness to challenge misinformation about her own experiences, even in the face of her father’s global platform, shows strength of character and a clear sense of self.

In essence, Wilson’s story is not one of loss or harm, as Musk suggests, but one of resilience, self-actualization, and the positive impact of appropriate medical care and family support. Her lived experience serves as a powerful counterargument to those who claim gender-affirming care is harmful. Instead, it provides living proof that such care, when provided appropriately and with support, can lead to positive outcomes, allowing transgender individuals to thrive and live authentically.

While Wilson’s story provides a powerful personal testament to the benefits of gender-affirming care, it’s crucial to examine the broader scientific evidence supporting these treatments. Contrary to Musk’s claims and political rhetoric opposing such care, a substantial body of research demonstrates the positive outcomes associated with gender-affirming care for transgender youth.

Recent debates about gender-affirming care have often been clouded by misinformation and political rhetoric. To cut through this noise, it’s essential to examine the scientific evidence. A recent white paper from Yale Law School, co-authored by Professor Anne Alstott and Dr. Meredithe McNamara, along with a team of international scientists, provides a comprehensive overview of the current scientific consensus on gender-affirming care .

This Yale white paper was written in response to a report commissioned by the U.K.’s National Health Service, known as the Cass Review. While the Cass Review has been cited by some to justify restrictions on gender-affirming care, the Yale paper argues that such interpretations misrepresent the review’s findings and the broader scientific evidence.

“The Cass Review levies unsupported assertions about gender identity, gender dysphoria, standard practices, and the safety of gender-affirming medical treatments, and it repeats claims that have been disproved by sound evidence,” write the white paper’s authors in a point-by-point debunking of some of the more outlandish talking points that have arisen from the Cass Review’s publication.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH, and United States Professional Association for Transgender Health, USPATH, put out a joint press release in May 2024, stating: “The Cass Review process itself intentionally and explicitly excluded any oversight from patients and their families and trans healthcare experts, and its content is not supported by a robust methodology. The Cass Review relies on selective and inconsistent use of evidence, and its recommendations often do not follow from the data presented in the systematic reviews.”

It’s worth noting that WPATH , the American Academy of Pediatrics , and the Endocrine Society all support gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents. This support is not merely organizational policy but is backed by a growing body of scientific evidence . The Yale white paper synthesizes this evidence, demonstrating improved mental health outcomes, better quality of life, and very low rates of regret among transgender youth who receive appropriate care.

The current political climate surrounding gender-affirming care for transgender youth is fraught with tension, as evidenced by the recent Supreme Court decision to hear a case on state bans of such care. This legal battle represents a broader conflict between scientific consensus and political ideology, with potentially far-reaching consequences for transgender individuals across the United States.

As of July 2024, 25 states have enacted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. These laws have been passed despite the fact that such treatments have been available in the U.S. for over a decade and are endorsed by major medical associations. The disconnect between medical expertise and legislative action is stark and concerning.

In this context, it’s particularly troubling to see suggestions like that made in The New York Times ’ The Morning newsletter. Writer David Leonhardt urged presumptive Democratic nominee Kamala Harris to adopt a position on health care for trans minors that would restrict the type of access that Vivian Jenna Wilson received. Leonhardt wrote:

U.S. liberals have adopted some positions on gender issues that are out of the mainstream. Doctors in Europe, for example, believe the scientific evidence doesn’t support gender transition hormone treatment for many children. Most Americans agree—while also opposing discrimination against trans people. Many prominent Democrats are well to the left of the public on this subject. If Harris took a moderate position, she could undermine Republican claims that she is an elite cultural liberal.

This suggestion is not only out of touch with the actual science of the matter but also deeply unethical. It proposes using the health care rights of a vulnerable population as a political bargaining chip. Moreover, it misrepresents the European medical consensus—while many politicians in Europe may agree with Leonhardt, this is not the view of doctors who are actually experts in this field—and overlooks the robust body of evidence supporting gender-affirming care.

The Yale white paper discussed earlier directly contradicts Leonhardt’s characterization of the European medical consensus. It points out that while some European countries have recently reviewed their policies, there isn’t a uniform European medical consensus against gender-affirming care for youth. Many European medical bodies continue to support such care when appropriate.

Furthermore, the suggestion that Harris should adopt a position based on political strategy rather than medical evidence is problematic and inhumane. Medical decisions should be based on scientific consensus and individual patient needs, not political expediency. This approach risks causing real harm to transgender youth who rely on access to gender-affirming care for their well-being.

The ongoing legal battles, exemplified by the upcoming Supreme Court case , underscore the high stakes of this debate. These laws and potential future restrictions could deny lifesaving care to young people like Wilson, who have benefited greatly from access to gender-affirming treatments.

Throughout this examination of gender-affirming care for transgender youth, several critical themes have emerged. Wilson’s personal journey stands as a powerful testament to the positive outcomes of such care. Her ability to live authentically and advocate for herself directly contradicts her father’s claims about the harm of these treatments. Importantly, her experience aligns with the broader scientific evidence supporting gender-affirming care.

This scientific consensus, as detailed in the Yale white paper and numerous studies, provides a strong foundation for the benefits of gender-affirming care. Improved mental health outcomes, enhanced quality of life, and remarkably low rates of regret are consistently reported. It’s no wonder that major medical associations, including the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Endocrine Society, all endorse gender-affirming care based on this robust evidence.

Yet we’ve seen how this evidence can be misrepresented. Claims that gender-affirming care is harmful or lacks scientific backing often distort the true scientific consensus. The critique of the Cass Review in the Yale white paper illustrates how selective interpretation of data can lead to misleading conclusions, underscoring the importance of comprehensive and unbiased analysis.

The current wave of legislative restrictions on gender-affirming care represents a troubling intrusion of political ideology into medical practice. These laws not only contradict medical expertise but also risk causing significant harm to transgender youth who rely on these treatments for their well-being. Even more concerning are suggestions that political figures should adopt anti-transgender stances for electoral gain, as proposed in the New York Times newsletter. Such proposals prioritize political strategy over the health and rights of a vulnerable population, raising serious ethical concerns.

As we look to the future, it’s imperative that we prioritize evidence-based care and individual rights. Medical decisions, whether about gender-affirming care or any other health matter, should remain in the hands of patients, their doctors, and in the case of minors, their parents. Government interference in these personal decisions, especially when it contradicts medical consensus, sets a dangerous precedent that extends beyond transgender health care.

The upcoming Supreme Court case on state bans of gender-affirming care underscores the national significance of this issue. As this legal battle unfolds, we must continue to amplify the voices and experiences of transgender individuals like Wilson, whose firsthand knowledge of the benefits of this care is invaluable.

Musk’s statements about his daughter and gender-affirming care not only cause personal hurt but also fly in the face of scientific evidence and the lived experiences of many transgender individuals. The political efforts to criminalize this care are both cruel and misguided, potentially denying lifesaving treatments to those who need them most.

Our society must stand firm in supporting evidence-based medical care and protecting individuals’ rights to make informed decisions about their own bodies and identities. Only through this commitment can we ensure that transgender youth, like Wilson, have the opportunity to thrive and live authentically as themselves. The path forward is clear: We must embrace science, compassion, and individual autonomy in our approach to transgender health care.