Aside from the fact that the proposed regulations have no statutory or constitutional basis, the very concept of mandating or compelling counselors to parrot a "party line" dictated by a state Board, rather than freely exercising their best professional judgment, informed by the specific circumstances and status of their patients, does violence to the principles of professional ethics as well as individual sovereignty and freedom from compulsory speech.  Such regulatory overreach may be right at home in the Communist Party of China, but not here in this Republic. 

Biology-affirming counseling is neither dangerous nor injurious, and there is ample evidence to support it's value and effectiveness.  Claiming otherwise is demonstrably deceitful.  

Such regulations fly in the face of the tenets of diversity, tolerance and inclusion that are so often heralded by Assembly leadership.  We do indeed live in an increasingly diverse Commonwealth, and those of us that hail from cultures, traditions and faith communities that subscribe to moral guidelines and truth claims about the nature of male and female and human sexual behaviors should not be excluded from the ranks of professional counseling by a cloistered elite in Richmond or be afforded no options as patients for counseling that is consistent with both our values and our biology.    

And finally, if patient "feelings" are the final arbiter of biological, psychological, and sociological truth, then you must explain how the proposed regulations can be consistently applied in situations when such feelings change, and a patient expresses uncertainty, reservations, or regrets about pursuing a counter-biological course of treatment.  The regs must permit counseling that assists such individuals that are seeking to re-align their emotions with their biology.