This is a weird article. The author clearly has an agenda they're pushing which the researcher doesn't appear to actually believe in:
The title claims that since we haven't figured out effective conversion therapy yet (allegedly) it must not be possible, though later on in the Q&A the researcher explicitly talks about requiring an evaluation being needed if a person's mental distress is related to actual gender dysphoria vs some other condition like schizophrenia.
The first half of the Q&A is all rosy about transgenderism not being a choice. Then the second half is when the admissions of people realizing they were mistaken and the risks start popping up:
On needing to be cautious about treating children:
> If you knew for certain that a boy that is 10 to 12 years old would be stable in his desire to be a girl for the rest of his life...then everything would work out perfectly. But there is no certainty in that
On hormonal treatments being risky:
> [It] is not harmless; like any treatment, it can have adverse effects... absolutely nothing is known about the treatment of children with blockers on the brain.
> You see transgender people in good health, but there are no long-term studies to know how they age or what effect some changes we have observed have in the brain.
On trans brains being somehow different from cis brains (but not like the cis brains of the gender they want):
> We have observed that there are brain differences in cis and trans men and cis and trans women.
For some reason reading this article made me wonder: how would you determine whether or not something is extravolitional, in the sense of something you're compelled to rather than decide?
I'm not questioning the conclusion in the title. However, the article raises at least one argument (therapy intending to change something has failed, therefore it is unchangeable) that is compelling but not entirely convincing on the face of it. Genetic studies are another, but those aren't entirely right either maybe? Maybe you can only bring various sorts of evidence to bear?
I think it's an interesting and important philosophical or psychological question in general. Usually people frame arguments about free will in terms of "do you have free will or not", but we also generally have this sense that certain things are outside our control, and it's interesting to think about how you define that difference and whether or not it's actually definable.
IMO, it's a really tricky situation. The issue sits right at the intersection of medicine, politics, and pop culture, and is worse for it.