Misplaced Pages

Talk:Detransition: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:06, 9 October 2019 editAquillion (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers25,846 edits →Neutrality Tag← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:36, 3 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Detransition/Archive 1) (bot 
(545 intermediate revisions by 98 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{BLP others}}
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=gg}}
{{Controversial}} {{Controversial}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|class=C|importance=low}} {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=C|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/NJIT/Introduction_to_Sociology_-_Honors_Section_(Fall_2018) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | term=Fall 2018 }}
}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30}}{{User:MiszaBot/config|archive = Talk:Detransition/Archive %(counter)d|algo = old(30d)}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=gg}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config|archive = Talk:Detransition/Archive %(counter)d|algo = old(30d)}}


__TOC__ __TOC__


== Article for transition regret? ==
== Detransition vs transgender desistance ==


This article currently distinguishes detransition from "transition regret", saying for example "The term is distinct from the concept of 'regret'".
Today, I removed a sentence from the article which read, "A 2008 study of gender dysphoric adolescents found 61% to desist from their transgender identity before reaching adulthood, and a 2013 study found 63% to desist," because desisting is not detransitioning, which is the ''cessation and reversal of a gender transition'', and the sentence in particular doesn't even mention the subjects of the study transitioned at all. The information was re-added by {{Ping|A145GI15I95}} with the assertion that the sources use the terms interchangeably. To support this, A145GI15I95 cited the following sources:
* in ''The Stranger'', which defines desistance as "trans kids eventually identify as their sex at birth", without reference to transitioning
* in ''The Atlantic'', which specifically describes desistance as ''distinct from'' detransitioning
* , in which the only use of the word "desistance", "desist", etc is simply to cite , which defines desistance as the resolution of children's gender dysphoria by the time they are adults, which also differentiates the two topics


Is there already a Misplaced Pages article for the concept of "transition regret"? Does anyone have thoughts on whether we should establish one?
In order to avoid an edit war, I have not yet removed the statements again, but to me it is clear that the conflation of the two topics is ] on A145GI15I95's part, not supported by the sources as they claim. I would like to assume good faith on A145GI15I95's part, but they have an apparent history of disruptive behavior on this article in particular. For example, ] in ''' this Twitter thread]. --] - <small>]</small> 23:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
:(Note: After this was posted, A145GI15I95's Twitter account was made private in order to make the link to their canvassing inaccessible, but it consisted of attempts to sway the results of the NPOV/other discussions above. --] - <small>]</small> 00:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC))


I was reading the recent article
:: The subjects of those two studies identified as trans, then years later reverted to non-trans identities. Transition doesn't require medical/physical changes, nor does detransition. The terms "detransition", "desistance", and "retransition" are used interchangeably by most sources, with little consensus as to distinction. My actions have remained with the realm of appropriate behavior on your linked rule page. However, '''you are now in violation of Misplaced Pages's privacy rules''', in this attempt to ]. ] (]) 00:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
*{{cite journal |last1=Barbee |first1=Harry |last2=Hassan |first2=Bashar |last3=Liang |first3=Fan |title=Postoperative Regret Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Recipients of Gender-Affirming Surgery |journal=JAMA Surgery |date=27 December 2023 |doi=10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6052}}
and wondering whether this information could be here, in a regret article, or elsewhere. ]] 19:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse top|Veering-off topic. ]. –] (] • ]) 15:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)}}
:There absolutely should be a section on this page for transition regret but that reality is too hard to swallow for the trans community. This page has been propagandized to hell and back. ] (]) 19:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
::It hasn't, but you're welcome to try to prove otherwise with reliable sources. ] (]) 02:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
::As someone who is trans, allow me to make a comment.
::First of all, I don't think there are many trans people who are opposed to more research and details on actual regret in transtion due to people genuinely feeling that their transition didnt align with their gender identity. However, I don't think the results would give you the answers youre looking for.
::If you'd like to, you could follow the sources that Misplaced Pages sites, check out the studies, and draw your own conclusions about the research and it's validity. However, I get the impression that your interest in detransition is purely because of dislike of trans people, rather than because of real concern. Feel free to prove me wrong though, I dont want to make assumptions about you.
::It's okay to have opinions, but we all sometimes need to take a step back and evaluate not just whether our opinions align with reality, but also how our opinions affect ourselves and others. No one is exempt from this, not you, not me, not anyone. We should always be open to changing our minds so we can avoid becoming bitter and hateful, and avoid harming others.
::Now, here's my two cents, (and feel free to present evidence as to why I should change my opinion,) I think that genuine transition regret likely disproportionately affects non-binary individuals because of the nature of their identity. If someone feels that they don't fit in with the male or female category, they are obviously going to be dissatisfied with teh changes to their body when for the most part gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender affirming surgery don't have clear pathways or many options for people who don't want to have the body of a man or the body of a woman.
::As well, educating not just people interested in transition, but all people on the topic would help reduce detransition rates. Maybe the layman wouldn't need to know a lot, but if people are educated on spotting ACTUAL symptoms of gender dysphoria and learning what gender identity actually means, many people who would have detransitioned had they begun transition would realize that they wouldn't benefit from transition.
::Educating doctors and general practitioners on the matter would not only make transition easier for both binary and non-binary transgender individuals, but it would also make doctors far less likely to diagnose someone who is actually cisgender with gender dysphoria.
::Sadly, I dont think youre actually interested in any of that. I think most likely, you believe "transgenderism" is a social contagion and degeneracy of the correct social order, and only want more details on detransition and transition regret because you believe it would invalidate "transgenderism" and the transgender experience, which you despise for some reason. Feel free to tell me what that reason is if you'd like. ] (]) 23:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I think it's unfair to assume someone who is frustrated with the way detransitioners are covered in media and public discourse is transphobic. Discussing detransition and transition regret is a valid and important part of the broader conversation about gender transition. These experiences deserve attention and should not be dismissed or minimized.
:::There are a myriad of reasons for wanting to discuss detransition and to be frustrated with the way the topic is currently discussed. It's unfair to attribute a single motivation to everyone who brings up this topic in a way you don't like. This is a very hurt group of people, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Many of them underwent permanent procedures and treatments at a very young age. Some of them are unable to breast feed their children (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/global-womens-health/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2023.1073053/full). Their grief, anger, and pain is very real.
:::Detransition stories are diverse and complex. I've personally seen how bullied some of the more outspoken members of the detransitioner community are on places like X and by institutions like the NYTimes (see their Chloe Cole hit piece for instance).
:::Creating space for open, respectful discussions about all aspects of transition, including regret, can lead to better support and informed decision-making for everyone. Maligning someone for being frustrated in this instance is really not assuming good faith. ] (]) 23:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
:We currently discuss "regret" as a reason for ] in this article, particularly in the Occurrence section. They are distinct but substantially entwined concepts. As your source and this article notes, post-operative regret for gender-affirming surgeries is considerably rare, and—without dismissing the real experiences of that small minority—exists preeminently as a ] weaponized by those seeking to limit the bodily and social autonomy of trans people. I'm concerned that a split would distort or exaggerate the actual prevalence of such, and risk becoming a ] or ].
:If more high-quality sources exist on the topic, they should be probably used here. –] (] • ]) 15:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::Will do! ] (]) 16:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
::I can see no reason why the rare incidence of transition regret would preclude better organization and information around the topic. Misplaced Pages's role is to serve as an encyclopedia of information, and as noted by the original commenter, it appears that the current page is falling short of that goal. Notably, many phenomena that impact far fewer humans have been deserving of their own pages e.g. ].
::It's unclear what is intended by "regret ... exists preeminently as a moral panic", but I worry it comes off as an attempt to leverage an affiliation as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting views. The role of Misplaced Pages is to be a neutral point of view ] and it would seem that the correct course of action is not to in some way hamper discussion and information, but rather to ensure that all viewpoints are represented.
::I do not, at all, understand the reference to ]. It is my understanding of your link that articles that veer away from their intended subject should ideally be split so that both topics can be addressed properly. That is exactly what's being proposed here to address the fact that transition regret and detransition are distinct, as mentioned in the article.
::As this is a contentious topic, I propose that we rely more on the stated guidelines of Misplaced Pages rather than personal opinions or guesses about potential future actions of unspecified third persons. ] (]) 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)


== The German paper ==
:::Nowhere did I make the assertion that (de)transition requires medical/physical changes. My point remains that no, the sources do not use them interchangeably, and the information currently cited in the article supporting that idea does not, in fact, do so.
:::<del>I do not believe my link violates any policy about personally identifying information, as it lacks any.</del> I misunderstood the breadth of the policy and now understand how it violated Misplaced Pages's policies. {{Ping|A145GI15I95}}, I apologize. --] - <small>]</small> 00:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


I agree with {{u|firefangledfeathers}} of {{u| Publius Obsequium}}. Although P.O. framed it as a study on desistance... the paper needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is not measuring "desistance". It is measuring ''diagnostic persistence'', and there are many technicalities surrounding ICD diagnoses, so we cannot know if patients actually desisted or settled into a cisgender identity. From what I have read online, many transgender people would be incorrectly captured in the non-persisting statistic, despite still identifying as trans. ] (]) 09:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that conflating adolescent desistance and detransition in adults is ]. The lack of consensus as to a definition or distinction does not mean it's okay to go ahead and make that decision on here.


== Gender desistance and desistance rate ==
In addition, I have concerns about A145GI15I95's apparent off-wiki canvassing and the subsequent influx of new editors to this page. This is not the way consensus should be built on this wiki. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">] ● ] ● ] ● ]</span> 02:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


Should we include that in the article? It's usually used for people who "grow out of being trans" before starting medical transition, or didn't even consider transitioning in the first place, but it's often conflated with detransition to inflate the rate at which it happens (to 70-80% or more). Maybe it's better to include it and explain why it's not the same thing, than just ignore it? ] (]) 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
: You falsely accuse me of being a sock, of committing "sins", of citing Tumblr blogs, and now of being a canvasser. You deny the detrans community exists. You complain of reliable sources that you simply dislike. You bully me on my user:talk page. '''Your bias in gender identity is admitted on your user page'''. Please stop. ] (]) 03:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


:I think I removed reference to desistance rates a while back, specifically because the source mentioned nothing about "detransition". If there are sources that clearly discuss desistance in the context of detransition, it might make sense to include. Part of the reason I also removed the desistance figure was because Google AI was using desistance figures as the detransiton rate.... so when you googled the detransition rate it showed up as "80%". Of course, those desistance figures are also controversial in part because the definition of "gender identity disorder" was broader than the requirements for "gender dysphoria" today, so it was expected that desistance rates would be high. ] (]) 00:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Hi A145GI15I95, if you believe that I am acting maliciously towards you, feel free to request ] or ] Otherwise, let's keep this talk page on-topic. Equivamp noted that it appears you requested help on Twitter to strengthen your point on this page. That is known as canvassing. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">] ● ] ● ] ● ]</span> 04:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


== Removed genocide/forced detransition section ==
::: "Let's keep this on topic", yet you keep bringing it back to hearsay and personal attacks. I already said I've done nothing outside the rules. An administrator already redacted the claim. Please stop. ] (]) 04:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


I've a paragraph that has been on the article for too long. Unfortunately, none of the sources seemed to verify it. The source briefly discusses detransition in two sentences, addressing the subject of "regret" but doesn't discuss forcible detransition.
::::The claim was not redacted, only the link which you expressed concern was "dox". The fact remains that you engaged in off-wiki ("stealth") canvassing right before a significant number of new editors began work on this page. --] - <small>]</small> 18:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Equivamp}} This page was also linked from the subreddit "GenderCritical" a few days ago , which has ~30k subscribers—I think that might explain and edits. I don't think A145GI15I95 should be blamed for the influx of new editors. I also don't think it's fair to characterise all the new editors as canvassed POV pushers—Pastaitaliana is new but has been making constructive additions. Cheers, ]] 00:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


The and the do not mention "detransition" once. This addition was no doubt well meaning but things need to be ], on topic and users should always ].
Recommendation? Given that it seems like newspaper articles (and common parlance) uses the terms interchangeably, and perhaps do so with good reason , perhaps the title of the page should be "Detransition/Desistance". There is no page about desistance as far as I can tell, and it does seem from journal articles (like the study I referenced below) that it isn't only children who "desist" in gender dysphoria or in an alternative gender-identification. Then we could have a section on "Medical Detransition" as well, which will be useful as that research starts to come out (GIDES is evidently reorganizing so as to track detransitions better). Thoughts, crew?
Figured if I was going to make this recommendation, I'd best demonstrate some evidence of it:
* Early social transitioning of the gender nonconforming preschooler may be an option if child is persistent and insistent in the gender variance, such as stating that they are the other gender, and if the parents express a strong acceptance and desire for it. Since in this age group children are developmentally at early stages of gender differentiation, nonconformity among preschool-age children is less socially noted or ostracized. This may alleviate the need for actual social transitioning, for example, in preschool programs. These children may never present to a gender specialist or even as gender nonconforming to their pediatricians, and are often taken care of at the primary care level. Some suggest caution in social transitioning in this age group as the rate of desistance might be higher than in older children. Detransitioning at a later age can be quite difficult for the child and family." And: "There is also concern about children desisting in cross-gender identification after puberty and the impact of detransitioning if the child socially transitioned before" https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-05683-4_7


Perhaps there are other reliable sources that would warrant reinclusion of this topic. ] (]) 00:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
--]

: "Desistance" is simply a polite/generic (less politically charged) word for "detransition". "Retransition" is almost a positive spin word (though adopted by some in the community). These words all mean the same thing: ''stopping IDing as trans.'' However that specifically manifests varies from person to person. Some keep their name, revert their name, or adopt a new name. Some keep pronouns, revert pronouns, take new pronouns. Some maintain dress, revert dress, or choose a new style of dress. Some continue cross-sex HRT, quit all HRT, or switch to same-sex HRT. Some never get surgery, some get surgery for the first time, some get new surgery in addition to surgeries from transition.
: If someone IDs as trans, IDs as the opposite sex/gender, changes name, changes pronouns, changes style of clothes, takes hormones, gets surgery, or anything of those sorts, then they're trans. There are many competing perspectives and definitions, and there's no strict requirement that they do any minimum number of those things. And if they stop doing that(those) thing(s), then they've ''desisted'' from being trans, they've ''detransitioned'' or ''retransitioned''. Detransition is the most common word within the community. How it manifests varies greatly based on histories and wishes.
: Younger folk are less likely to've yet made many great physical changes, and they're more likely to detransition. This is noted and sourced in the article. But that doesn't mean youth who who detransition were never ''really'' trans or never ''really'' transitioned anymore than it means so for an adult.
: This article has done a good job of walking the line of NPOV, stating facts without emotion, citing studies from both "sides". Though I still wish we'd stop fixating on statistics and declarations when we've so little data. The complaints here are from seemingly biased parties who apparently see detransition as a threat to trans rights. I believe treating detransition fairly should arouse no legitimate concern from any trans advocate or activist. ] (]) 04:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

:: In that case, "Detransition/Desistance" seems like a good fix, given that they're synonyms. I haven't come across the retransition term at all, so it may be jumping the gun to add that to the top line, but definitely if there's a source, it's worth mentioning in the article! I'm still new to wikipedia but it seems to me that there are ways of marking AKA on pages? ] (]) 22:45, 13 March 2019 (PDT)

::: Respectfully, I don't believe the article should be retitled as "Detransition/desistance", as "desistance" is a generic term for ceasing anything. It's also applied to ADHD, for example. Maybe "Detransition and gender-identity desistance", but I think that's unnecessarily wordy. The general term preferred by community members is simply "detransition". ] (]) 06:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

:::: Alright, well I don't have a strong preference either way. I do think that the research falls into two categories generally, those who have medically transitioned v. those who have socially/identity transitioned, and that it might be worthwhile to lump the research results into those two groups. I'm just thinking of ways to make the page a little clearer and more readable, because there's a long list of symptoms/causes, and maybe sorting would help with legibility. Thanks for listening!] (]) 23:45, 13 March 2019 (PDT)

::::: I appreciate your willingness to discuss, and suggestions to improve legibility. Differentiating kinds of trans folk is considered transphobic, and differentiating kinds of detrans folk is similarly detransphobic. Thank you. ] (]) 06:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

:As noted above, the current citations that purport to show that the terms are used interchangeably, in fact contradict that claim, or at least do not support it. --] - <small>]</small> 18:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

:: I disagree. I didn't do any more work on more evidence as it didn't seem like it was helpful to the discussion on this page. But it seems obvious to me that these terms are doing the same work, esp the last sentence: "There is also concern about children desisting in cross-gender identification after puberty and the impact of detransitioning if the child socially transitioned before". Desisting seems to be the internal manifestation of detransitioning. You desist in identification (internally) and that manifests (externally) as a detransition. This is of course not the same thing as getting an SRS reversal, which would be a sub-category of certain types of transitions. --] (]) 14:47, 14 March 2019 (PDT).

::: The two studies of younger detrans folk ( and ) use ''desist '' as an antonym to ''persist ''. Again, ''desistance'' is a polite/technical term. ''Detransition'' is the colloquial/umbrella term adopted by the detrans community. ] (]) 22:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

:::: "Persist with having a trans identity" is not the same thing as "transition", so I'm not seeing the argument made that to ''desist'' is the same as transition. The sources cited as using them interchangeably don't. There have been no sources provided to support that "desist" is a technical term with "detransition" being an intracommunity term for the same phenomenon. --] - <small>]</small> 23:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

::::: To persist trans ID is indeed to continue with transition, to continue being trans. Consider this sequence:
::::: 1) A person IDs as trans. They're now trans. Nothing further is required. They've begun transition. Transition may take further social, legal, and/or medical aspects over time.
::::: 2) Time passes, and this person still IDs as trans, they still are trans, their trans ID persists.
::::: 3) Later, this person desists from IDing as trans. They're now detrans. As in transition, nothing further is required. They've begun detransition. Detransition may take further social, legal and/or medical aspects over time.
::::: The focus on removing studies of teenagers and young adults, who're least likely yet to've gotten surgery, who're the most likely age group to detransition, is an attempt to skew numbers back to "detransition never happens, detrans lives don't matter".
::::: ] (]) 03:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

::::::"Being transgender" is not the same as "transitioning". This is why ] and ] are able to be separate articles. To quote the ] article, "Transition must begin with a personal decision to transition, prompted by the feeling that one's gender identity does not match the sex that one was assigned at birth." ''Being transgender'' is the "feeling" described, and ''transitioning'' refers to actions taken. (Be they restricted only to the social sphere or not.) You're implying I have some agenda to "skew" numbers of people who detransition, when that is not the case, nor is it relevant to what the sources say "detransitioning" and "desisting" are. Misplaced Pages reports what the reliable sources say. The reliable sources say they are related but not interchangeable - including the sources you yourself have tried to use to support their conflation, as I showed above. --] - <small>]</small> 20:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

::::::: ''No one said being trans is transition''. '''Identifying as trans is a form of transition''' (known as self ID). You cite two Misplaced Pages articles, but Misplaced Pages articles aren't reliable sources. I question your motive in removing these two studies because the web is full of blogs and tweets from activists attempting to discredit these studies. Please stop removing stable content without reaching consensus here first, thanks. ] (]) 21:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

:::::::: Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the way the particular statement is sourced is that the studies in the inline citation are still in the article regardless of whether they are attached to that particular statement. In fact, checking , it looks like they're still there. '''My issue is not with the inclusion of the sources''', it is with misleadingly conveying that they support a claim which they actually contradict. If you can produce RS which support the conflation of the terms, I encourage you to do so, as ample time has passed with the misleadingly-cited information being presented as fact on this article to allow time for it. Again, I don't have an issue with the sources cited in and of themselves, and I didn't remove them from the article - they're still there. I'm not an activist at all. Are you? --] - <small>]</small> 22:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

::::::::: I'm sorry, I confused this discussion of a removed definition with another thread in which studies have been removed. Regarding definitions, I've added more medical sources and rewording accordingly. Thank you. ] (]) 22:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::: No worries, things can get a bit hectic when trying to address multiple things at once, so I understand how that can happen. I'm glad that we could get through that confusion to work on it. I think {{ping|Moeena}} brings up good points about where to go from here (below) but I think I'm happy with it for now. The article will continue to grow as continued media coverage and research is done on the topic. --] - <small>]</small> 03:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
:::::::: I believe that Equivamp is in the right here. Not all (in fact, I'd wager it's quite few) of the children in the desistance study identify as detrans or belong to said online communities. The article should use the terminology used by experts, not a colloquial usage used by a specific online community. There are more gender non-conforming children than there are transgender children, and calling childhood desistance detransition conflates the two. I think there should be seperate sections on childhood desistance and adult cessation of HRT/surgery/legal changes etc, especially because combining the statistics on the two is so SYNTHy. (See {{tq|Frequency estimates for detransition and desistance vary greatly from 0 to 95%, with notable differences in terminology and methodology.}}) Desistance is much more common than detransition, but the current state of the article is essentially meaningless. Is the frequency of surgical detransition 95%? Is the rate of childhood desistance 1-2%? There's no way of knowing.
:::::::: I certainly don't believe that seperating these two is going to send the message that {{tq|detrans lives don't matter;}} that's a little hyperbolic. Reliably reporting on the research that has been done is going to cause no harm to the community of people who have detransitioned, nor is not doing so going to encourage people to join those online communities. If that worries you, it may be time to take a step back and cool down a little. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">] ● ] ● ] ● ]</span> 04:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

::::::::: This section of talk is regarding the two youth studies (Wallien 2008 and Steensma 2013), which report persistance vs desistance of gender dysphoria and trans gender identity. Our article content summarizes their results succinctly and accurately. Desistance is a part of detransition, so their inclusion is relevant. The percentage range for all studies (in the introductory paragraph preceding the paragraph of studies) is immediately followed by the statement that frequency is greatest in the earliest stages. ] (]) 05:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

== Mike Penner ==

Hello all,

I just commented out the addition of Mike Penner, because I thought it needed some discussion. While detransition is not solely a medical topic, the ], a higher standard than ], provides a sensible guideline for content and tone. In particular, ] for mentioning notable cases or media portrayals is applicable here. I'm reluctant to mention Penner because, although he returned to his former gender self-identification, and lots of sources called his experience one of detransition, he didn't publicly self-identify that way.

I think that all the other individual accounts are fine to mention, since the people (a) publicly self-identify as detrans and (b) have received media coverage specifically for their detransition; I of course would be opposed to adding people based on speculation or tabloid coverage, or including fictional portrayals without strong secondary sources. Penner is a bit of an edge case, but I think that we should err on the side of caution on a potential BLP issue. Cheers, ]] 11:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

: Hi Gnu, thanks for commenting! I'm not particular - I simply copied over the reference from the french language wiki on detransition. I guess here is why I think Penner might be a valuable case to add. First, he seems to be the first notable "detransition". Seeing how the discussion of such a new concept evolves over time can be important for understanding it. Second, he fits the definition of the topic in an "objective" sense - once ID'd as trans, then didn't. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that detransition as a term is both an identity and an objective medical term. We use detransition to talk about childhood desistance, adolescent and adult identification, and adult SRS reversal. It would make sense to me to have different names for these things, but I don't think that exists yet - it's still too new. Anyway, there are plenty of notable cases, so one more or less doesn't seem too important to me - I'll defer to group consensus :) Thanks again for opening up the chat! ] (]) 15:25, 17 March 2019

: I'd like to echo that the words ''detransition/detransitioner/detrans'' didn't exist or weren't at all well-known in 2008 (''transgender/transition/trans'' were barely known to the general public then). I'm in favor of returning Penner's short bio, as it garnered noticeable media attention. And yes, I certainly would oppose any future introduction of tabloid speculations (such as with Caitlyn Jenner, for example). And I'm undecided on the recent introduction of fictional examples. ] (]) 19:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
::Ok, I'll restore the Penner bio. When I looked up news stories about him, I found the amount of armchair psychoanalysis and speculation about his motivations really offputting; but you guys are right that he is one of the first prominent cases, and the actual facts of his bio are well established. (It would be nice, though, to use a reference with more factual details and less speculation.) Thanks for your comments. Cheers, ]] 19:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
::: Definitely agree with you that that armchair psychoanalysis is often less than stellar (and sometimes really icky). The source linked in the French wiki was a sympathetic commentator, so I thought that it would probably be the best one? (Tbh I didn't actually look around for new sources -- I should actually read a little bit about wikis in different languages and the expected syncing there). I suppose it is good at least to see that the way these issues are discussed has changed so much over the past decade. Thanks Gnu! ] (]) 21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)PastaItaliana

:I suspect everyone here already knows this, but since no-one has outright mentioned this I will point out for the record that while Misplaced Pages can cite someone as an example of something even if ''contemporary'' sources didn't have a, or the modern, word for the thing (we have a whole article on the ]!), we do still have to have ''some'' sources which make the connection ''now'', or else it's ] / ]. In this case, one of the sources cited does use the word ''detransition'', but the other seems not to(?) and replacing it with one which does also refer to Penner as an example of detransition would be helpful, since if only one reliable, non-tabloid source refers to Penner as such, it would not be ] to present him as such. ] (]) 22:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|-sche}} The Friess article uses the terms "reverse transition" and "retransition" instead. The other source (which does say "de-transition") is a huffpost contributor article. I've found a book on gender and sport which devotes a chapter to Penner, calling his return to a male identity a "(re/de)transition"; I'm thinking of swapping that in for the huffpost source. Cheers, ]] 22:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

== RfC for Medref tag ==


Seeking fresh, outside, neutral opinions on the "Occurrence" section's sources, per the Medref tag, please. Previous discussion is at ]. Please note this page is tagged "Controversial".

The Medref tag was added 2017 December 27, 15 months ago. At that time, the article overall had 16 sources, all from the news. The medical section referenced 5 of those news sources, 2 of which referred to the same story.

Today, the article has 61 sources: 5 from books, 13 from medical journals, 32 of which are from news, and 11 from online sources. The medical section references 26 of those sources: 2 from books, 11 from journals, 15 from news, 1 from general online. Of the 11 journal sources, 2 of them reference the other 9.

Regarding this expansion of quantity and quality of sources, is the Medref tag still needed?

Thank you, ] (]) 06:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
:It's good that there's been a big increase in the use of MEDRS-compliant references, but the 32 news citations suggests maybe that the tag is still appropriate. We need to be moving to a point where there are almost no non-MEDRS-compliant references for medical claims. ] (]) 08:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

:: Thanks for replying. The majority of news sources support content outside the medical section, to cover the social and legal aspects of detransition, which don't require MedRS. News sources within the medical section only support the journal sources as secondary sources. ] (]) 17:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
:::News sources for social and legal issues are fine. In terms of medical content, ] discourages us from using any news sources. If they're just repeating what MEDRS-compliant sources say, they can be deleted from there. ] (]) 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

:::WP:MEDRS does not mean that all medical sources are okay. It clearly discourages ]. It also goes over quality matters. ] (]) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

===Staszek Lem's uneducated opinion ===
This is a malformed RFC. You need to ask a ''specific'' question. The talk section you link is a chaotic discussion of several things. RFC usually asks for uninvolved editors like me who have no idea what was going on with the article. You ''have'' to brief them, otherwise sorry, ].

Now, specific comments:

First, The section has LOTS of references, but at the moment I looked it I get a strong whiff of original research, namely ]. This is exactly how SYNTH texts look like: a reference per word: {{tq|have been few in number, of disputed quality, and politically controversial.)}}.

Second, how many of the ''medical'' refs are primary and how many secondary sources? To figure it out, this is ''your'' job, not commenters'.

In other words, if I were you, the RFC request must be something like this: {{tq|Of 100 footnotes, 30 refer to news, 20 to primary, and 50 to secondary sources. However the 50 2ndary ones refer to only 5 the same authiors. Do you think the Medref tag is still required?}} ] (]) 17:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

:Thanks for replying. I opened the RfC; I wanted to avoid leading the question on this controversial topic. I've reworded above per your feedback. On perceived synth of quoted sentence: A and B are not cited to claim an uncited C; A, B, and C are cited, and A + B ≠ C. ] (]) 19:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

* As commonly happens, {{ping|Staszek Lem}} makes good points and I concur. However, it seems to me that this entire issue is not one that needs urgent resolution, and the very fact that we are agonising over it suggests that we are in reasonable doubt, which in turn means that we should leave the tag for another year or two (when possibly we might have more instances and publications as a basis for something more like a definitive basis for a decision?) As things stand, I may be prejudiced, but I don't think that any reader of the current version with its cautionary tag should be in no doubt that the text is tentative, but helpfully intended, and serves as a basis for further reading if desired. ] (]) 14:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

:*Thanks for replying. The {{tq|very fact that we are agonising}} could indicate bias over a politically controversial topic, rather than {{tq|reasonable doubt}}. It's unclear what specific changes are needed to address the tag, other than the repeated ''more''. The quantity and quality of content and sources here are comparable to those of ] and ], which are free of complaint. ] (]) 16:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

== Individual Accounts ==

Hi all. We have a lot of individual accounts at this point, and I worry things could get cluttered. I thought I'd check in about notability, and defer to group consensus. Thoughts on comedian Will Franken's detransition? Worth adding? https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/30/comedian-who-came-out-as-transgender-reverts-back-to-a-man/ https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-i-began-living-as-a-woman-then-decided-to-transition-back-a6788051.html <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:The section's length is still in fine proportion to the other sections. There may come a day when it should break into a separate article, but not yet. Regarding Will Franken, I remember when this comedian's story broke (here it is also on ). It generated interesting conversations at the time (in reliable and unreliable sources, positive and negative). I think it's notable enough for addition. ] (]) 19:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

::The list is growing and is near the point of becoming a random collection. If it gets any larger, it should follow the same rule as for other lists on Misplaced Pages: if people are notable enough to have an article, list them. If not, don't. ] (]) 21:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
:::If someone is featured in one article in one RS, ''e.g.'' Anthony and Robinson, then that does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. We need to see an individual be covered by multiple RS. ] (]) 22:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:::: Perhaps we could begin to reword the section as prose that focuses more on shared social themes and experiences, and to be less like a list of persons. ] (]) 23:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

:Sarah comes across to me as a less serious case and perhaps something of a publicity thing. If mentioned at all, evidence of the publicity aspect should be included, but it seems to me like a blip on the screen of the larger issue, in spite of the coverage it generated at the time. ] (]) 12:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

:I've been thinking about this, and while Jonathunder's suggestion of paring the list to people who have articles would bring it in line with similar articles I can think of (e.g., the list in ] is kept to only ones who have articles), I was hesitant, because it'd also remove much of the section's contents. However, the more I think about it...are there other articles where we give paragraphs to multiple non-notable i.e. non-article-having people's individual experiences of the topic? ] doesn't seem to contain accounts by individual AAs of what it's like to be African American, ] doesn't seem to contain a section of accounts of (non-notable or, to much extent, even notable) trans women's experiences of transitioning and being trans, ] doesn't seem to contain individual accounts of people who've had SRS. The closest I can find is ], which has blurbs on individuals, but apparently only ones who meet ] i.e. have their own articles, which is back to Jonathunder's point. I'd say, remove anyone who's only attested in one RS, per Bondegezou, but whether to include other people who may not have articles but are covered in enough RS to suggest they have some importance (e.g. possibly Walt Heyer, who I ran into mentions of while looking up something else related to this article the other day), I'm not sure.<br>The suggestion above to refocus on (or even just, add content on) commonalities would be good ''to the extent that'' there are RS pointing things out ''as'' being commonalities or being generally the case&mdash;we should avoid just looking at a number of accounts and saying "well, several/most/all of these accounts have feature X, so...", because that's liable to run into ]/]. (One possible commonality I saw suggested in the sources I was looking through yesterday is that people who detransition tend to be at earlier stages of transition, it being very rare among people who've had surgery. Something else to look into would be whether any RS report on it being more common among one sex/gender or another.) ] (]) 16:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
::I concur with that.
::If there are particularly famous cases, I think they can warrant inclusion, but those should only be exceptional cases. For example, Christiane Völling gets explicitly mentioned at ] for a specific reason as a first. ] (]) 16:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
{{ping|Bondegezou}} I agree that the individual cases of detransition are numerous enough that not all of them should be included (unlike, say, ], where the small handful of possible cases are all mentioned).

<s>I've been a bit reluctant to open this potential can of worms, but how about drafting another section called something like "associated activism", to explain the viewpoints of detransitioners publicly known for their advocacy like Callahan, Heyer, and possibly Anthony, as well as other people who've written extensively about detransitioning from various perspectives and received secondary-source coverage like ], ] (the anti-gay marriage public intellectual guy—I'm very surprised he doesn't have an article), ], and ]? The "What is a Woman" New Yorker article has some background information as well about the views of radical feminists and transfeminists. Cheers, ]] 10:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)</s> <small>Never mind, I've realised this is unnecessary and overall a bad idea. ]] 16:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)</small>
:If individuals are of particular note, they should have their own articles. They could be mentioned briefly here, perhaps in an annotated See Also section. We have some text discussing activism around detransitioning: we could include notable people within that...? ] (]) 11:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

::The Mitchell and Anthony stories were removed. I can see Mitchell as less notable, being reported by only two sources in a single month. Anthony has been covered in several sources over multiple years, so I re-added him with further refs. ] (]) 18:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::I think this section remains the largest in the article. That seems wrong to me. Are all of these examples necessary? ] (]) 19:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

::::OK, I've made a bold move: removed Robinson and Belovitch content (since their stories are more isolated in time), moved the sources that focused only on them to Further reading (they're good stories), and refocused remaining content on the more notable persons (with less "this magazine on that date" language). Hope this addresses the concerns without offending fans of the content. ] (]) 22:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::I think these new accounts could use some work. Specifically, I think it would be helpful to say *why* the blogs that they run are particularly notable, since I can't think of many other articles that list bloggers on the topic. Regarding the Lepovic section, {{tq|As his views became less essentialist}} sounds like editorializing to me. The articles I read don't mention essentialism or explain what it is. (?) I don't propose removing them entirely, but they certainly could be edited down. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 20px lightskyblue, -4px -4px 20px HotPink;font-weight:bold;">] ● ] ● ] ● ]</span>

::::::Revised. ] (]) 05:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

==Pride before the fall==
{{collapse top|title=off-topic discussion}}
Wiki loves Pride. ] Pride before the fall. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{collapse bottom}}


:* {{tq|Forced Detransition Already A Terrifying Reality in Some States as Washington Post Report Highlights How Anti-Transgender Rhetoric and Policies Have Ratcheted Up in State Capitals Across Country}}
== Neutrality Tag ==
:* {{tq|This concerted effort by right-wing politicians has left those affected in Florida with a tough decision: leave their homes or potentially be forced to detransition if they remain. }}
:*
:*
:* {{tq|There has been little research done on the effects of forced detransition, which has only become a legislative tactic within recent years.}}
:* {{tq| It’s a terrifying possibility for so many of us, as is forced detransition in some states.}}
:Here's a quick list of sources to build it out, I'll come back to it in the next few days to have a go at rewriting the section!
:I do want to state however, I don't think we should require sources say "forced detransition"/"forced to detransition" to be included. We already note in the article that detransition can be purely medical, and often due to societal/social factors. When a law criminalizes trans healthcare, all the people on it are pretty ]-wise going to have to detransition or move. We can use the sources above, among others that more directly mention the phenomenon, as a base to start rebuilding the section, but from there we should include more general sources for statements like "X states have banned transgender healthcare in 2024" that contextualize the scope of the issue without directly noting it. Best, ] (]) 01:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|"I don't think we should require sources say "forced detransition"/"forced to detransition" to be included"}} – I agree, but I am talking about inclusion under a specific heading/paragraph about "forced detransition". That probably needs to be on topic. Any article that discusses detransition in general might warrant inclusion elsewhere in the article or under a modified heading. ] (]) 03:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::I think the "Criminalization of gender-affirming care" section probably should be shifted to its own article. It would make a lot more sense. A lot of that section is not clearly related to detransition, but restricting people/children from ''medically'' transitioning in the first place. It reads like ] and original analysis. ] (]) 04:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I know we're talking about the forced detransition section, I'm saying, for example, we can cite a source that says "state laws in the US are forcing people who can't afford to flee to detransition", and then cite another source to say "X states have criminalized provision of GAC" since that changes often.
:::We should get rid of the criminalization section, merging what we can to a forced detransition section that states the general issue "laws banning trans healthcare de-factor force people to medically detransition".
:::{{tq|A lot of that section is not clearly related to detransition, but restricting people/children from ''medically'' transitioning in the first place}} I just want to note that in these states minors have already been on trans healthcare. There are ''extremely rarely'' provisos to allow those already receiving it to continue, so it's not just stopping them starting but continuing. ] (]) 04:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Sounds good, I agree with the changes. ] (]) 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)


== Rewriting to focus on reviews ==
Hi, I noticed this article has a neutrality tag on it, dated March 2019. I've reviewed the article and I do not see any POV problems at this time. Are there any current POV concerns? <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px">] ]</span> 14:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


As it stands, the article relies on a lot of primary studies and opinion pieces. We should be doing citing reviews directly as much as possible, so I'm creating this section to collate them before starting to rewrite the article based on them. If I miss some, please add them! These were found by google scholar, searching "detransition" in abstracts and toggling for reviews only since 2016.
:{{ping|May His Shadow Fall Upon You}} {{u|Mooeena}} added the tag in March 2019 (]) and started a discussion in the talk page: ]. Some things in the article have changed since March. One of the challenged statements is still there: {{tq|The number of detransitioners is unknown but growing.}}. Maybe Mooeena or someone else can elaborate on current major NPOV issues, if any. Best, --] (]) 07:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable"
::I think that, while the {{tq|unknown but growing}} sentence has a lot of sources, it clearly both contradicts and is encompassed by the earlier {{tq|Frequency estimates for detransition and desistance vary greatly, with notable differences in terminology and methodology}} - ie. it looks like what we're doing is first saying that it varies greatly, then selectively citing people who say it's increasing. Also, the citations, on close examination, are mostly not very good - one person (or a few) saying they've seen more people is anecdotal evidence; preliminary findings shouldn't be reported as fact; Singal is a ]ed source whose opinions on this topic cannot be cited on this subject without in-line attribution (and who carefully hedges with "appeared to be"); and the last one says more ''youtube videoes'' are appearing, not detransitioners. At the very least several of those cites have to go, since they don't support the point being made. EDIT: By my reading only one study there seems to support the idea that there is solid, reliable evidence behind there being an increase rather than vague anecdotes, opinions, or preliminary findings. --] (]) 14:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
|+ Caption text
|-
! Name !! Type !! Author/Year
|-
| Prevalence of detransition in persons seeking gender-affirming hormonal treatments: a systematic review || Systematic || Feigerlova 2024
|-
| Prevalence of Regret in Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Systematic Review || Systematic || Thomas et al 2024
|-
| Continuation of Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Individuals: A Systematic Review || Systematic || Gupta et al 2024
|-
| Gender detransition: A critical review of the literature || Critical || Expósito-Campos 2023
|-
| Dynamic Gender Identities and Expressions: Detransition and Affirming Non-linear Gender Pathways Among Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth || ? || Dolatina et al 2023
|-
| Do gender assessments prevent regret in transgender healthcare? A narrative review. || Narrative || Ashley & McKinnon 2024
|-
| Defining Desistance: Exploring Desistance in Transgender and Gender Expansive Youth Through Systematic Literature Review || Systematic || Karrington 2022
|} ] (]) 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:36, 3 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Detransition article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Article for transition regret?

This article currently distinguishes detransition from "transition regret", saying for example "The term is distinct from the concept of 'regret'".

Is there already a Misplaced Pages article for the concept of "transition regret"? Does anyone have thoughts on whether we should establish one?

I was reading the recent article

  • Barbee, Harry; Hassan, Bashar; Liang, Fan (27 December 2023). "Postoperative Regret Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Recipients of Gender-Affirming Surgery". JAMA Surgery. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6052.

and wondering whether this information could be here, in a regret article, or elsewhere. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Veering-off topic. WP:NPA. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
There absolutely should be a section on this page for transition regret but that reality is too hard to swallow for the trans community. This page has been propagandized to hell and back. 97.120.249.14 (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
It hasn't, but you're welcome to try to prove otherwise with reliable sources. Nemo (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
As someone who is trans, allow me to make a comment.
First of all, I don't think there are many trans people who are opposed to more research and details on actual regret in transtion due to people genuinely feeling that their transition didnt align with their gender identity. However, I don't think the results would give you the answers youre looking for.
If you'd like to, you could follow the sources that Misplaced Pages sites, check out the studies, and draw your own conclusions about the research and it's validity. However, I get the impression that your interest in detransition is purely because of dislike of trans people, rather than because of real concern. Feel free to prove me wrong though, I dont want to make assumptions about you.
It's okay to have opinions, but we all sometimes need to take a step back and evaluate not just whether our opinions align with reality, but also how our opinions affect ourselves and others. No one is exempt from this, not you, not me, not anyone. We should always be open to changing our minds so we can avoid becoming bitter and hateful, and avoid harming others.
Now, here's my two cents, (and feel free to present evidence as to why I should change my opinion,) I think that genuine transition regret likely disproportionately affects non-binary individuals because of the nature of their identity. If someone feels that they don't fit in with the male or female category, they are obviously going to be dissatisfied with teh changes to their body when for the most part gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender affirming surgery don't have clear pathways or many options for people who don't want to have the body of a man or the body of a woman.
As well, educating not just people interested in transition, but all people on the topic would help reduce detransition rates. Maybe the layman wouldn't need to know a lot, but if people are educated on spotting ACTUAL symptoms of gender dysphoria and learning what gender identity actually means, many people who would have detransitioned had they begun transition would realize that they wouldn't benefit from transition.
Educating doctors and general practitioners on the matter would not only make transition easier for both binary and non-binary transgender individuals, but it would also make doctors far less likely to diagnose someone who is actually cisgender with gender dysphoria.
Sadly, I dont think youre actually interested in any of that. I think most likely, you believe "transgenderism" is a social contagion and degeneracy of the correct social order, and only want more details on detransition and transition regret because you believe it would invalidate "transgenderism" and the transgender experience, which you despise for some reason. Feel free to tell me what that reason is if you'd like. 2607:FEA8:999E:9A00:8D04:83C9:5F96:FDC (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it's unfair to assume someone who is frustrated with the way detransitioners are covered in media and public discourse is transphobic. Discussing detransition and transition regret is a valid and important part of the broader conversation about gender transition. These experiences deserve attention and should not be dismissed or minimized.
There are a myriad of reasons for wanting to discuss detransition and to be frustrated with the way the topic is currently discussed. It's unfair to attribute a single motivation to everyone who brings up this topic in a way you don't like. This is a very hurt group of people, emotionally, spiritually, and physically. Many of them underwent permanent procedures and treatments at a very young age. Some of them are unable to breast feed their children (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/global-womens-health/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2023.1073053/full). Their grief, anger, and pain is very real.
Detransition stories are diverse and complex. I've personally seen how bullied some of the more outspoken members of the detransitioner community are on places like X and by institutions like the NYTimes (see their Chloe Cole hit piece for instance).
Creating space for open, respectful discussions about all aspects of transition, including regret, can lead to better support and informed decision-making for everyone. Maligning someone for being frustrated in this instance is really not assuming good faith. ViolanteMD (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
We currently discuss "regret" as a reason for Detransition in this article, particularly in the Occurrence section. They are distinct but substantially entwined concepts. As your source and this article notes, post-operative regret for gender-affirming surgeries is considerably rare, and—without dismissing the real experiences of that small minority—exists preeminently as a moral panic weaponized by those seeking to limit the bodily and social autonomy of trans people. I'm concerned that a split would distort or exaggerate the actual prevalence of such, and risk becoming a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK.
If more high-quality sources exist on the topic, they should be probably used here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Will do! ViolanteMD (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I can see no reason why the rare incidence of transition regret would preclude better organization and information around the topic. Misplaced Pages's role is to serve as an encyclopedia of information, and as noted by the original commenter, it appears that the current page is falling short of that goal. Notably, many phenomena that impact far fewer humans have been deserving of their own pages e.g. Achumawi Language.
It's unclear what is intended by "regret ... exists preeminently as a moral panic", but I worry it comes off as an attempt to leverage an affiliation as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting views. The role of Misplaced Pages is to be a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and it would seem that the correct course of action is not to in some way hamper discussion and information, but rather to ensure that all viewpoints are represented.
I do not, at all, understand the reference to WP:COATRACK. It is my understanding of your link that articles that veer away from their intended subject should ideally be split so that both topics can be addressed properly. That is exactly what's being proposed here to address the fact that transition regret and detransition are distinct, as mentioned in the article.
As this is a contentious topic, I propose that we rely more on the stated guidelines of Misplaced Pages rather than personal opinions or guesses about potential future actions of unspecified third persons. ViolanteMD (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The German paper

I agree with firefangledfeathers reversion of Publius Obsequium. Although P.O. framed it as a study on desistance... the paper needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. It is not measuring "desistance". It is measuring diagnostic persistence, and there are many technicalities surrounding ICD diagnoses, so we cannot know if patients actually desisted or settled into a cisgender identity. From what I have read online, many transgender people would be incorrectly captured in the non-persisting statistic, despite still identifying as trans. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Gender desistance and desistance rate

Should we include that in the article? It's usually used for people who "grow out of being trans" before starting medical transition, or didn't even consider transitioning in the first place, but it's often conflated with detransition to inflate the rate at which it happens (to 70-80% or more). Maybe it's better to include it and explain why it's not the same thing, than just ignore it? Matinee71 (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I removed reference to desistance rates a while back, specifically because the source mentioned nothing about "detransition". If there are sources that clearly discuss desistance in the context of detransition, it might make sense to include. Part of the reason I also removed the desistance figure was because Google AI was using desistance figures as the detransiton rate.... so when you googled the detransition rate it showed up as "80%". Of course, those desistance figures are also controversial in part because the definition of "gender identity disorder" was broader than the requirements for "gender dysphoria" today, so it was expected that desistance rates would be high. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed genocide/forced detransition section

I've removed a paragraph that has been on the article for too long. Unfortunately, none of the sources seemed to verify it. The first source briefly discusses detransition in two sentences, addressing the subject of "regret" but doesn't discuss forcible detransition.

The Vox source and the MSNBC source do not mention "detransition" once. This addition was no doubt well meaning but things need to be WP:VER, on topic and users should always WP:STICKTOSOURCE.

Perhaps there are other reliable sources that would warrant reinclusion of this topic. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's a quick list of sources to build it out, I'll come back to it in the next few days to have a go at rewriting the section!
I do want to state however, I don't think we should require sources say "forced detransition"/"forced to detransition" to be included. We already note in the article that detransition can be purely medical, and often due to societal/social factors. When a law criminalizes trans healthcare, all the people on it are pretty WP:BLUESKY-wise going to have to detransition or move. We can use the sources above, among others that more directly mention the phenomenon, as a base to start rebuilding the section, but from there we should include more general sources for statements like "X states have banned transgender healthcare in 2024" that contextualize the scope of the issue without directly noting it. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
"I don't think we should require sources say "forced detransition"/"forced to detransition" to be included" – I agree, but I am talking about inclusion under a specific heading/paragraph about "forced detransition". That probably needs to be on topic. Any article that discusses detransition in general might warrant inclusion elsewhere in the article or under a modified heading. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the "Criminalization of gender-affirming care" section probably should be shifted to its own article. It would make a lot more sense. A lot of that section is not clearly related to detransition, but restricting people/children from medically transitioning in the first place. It reads like WP:SYNTH and original analysis. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I know we're talking about the forced detransition section, I'm saying, for example, we can cite a source that says "state laws in the US are forcing people who can't afford to flee to detransition", and then cite another source to say "X states have criminalized provision of GAC" since that changes often.
We should get rid of the criminalization section, merging what we can to a forced detransition section that states the general issue "laws banning trans healthcare de-factor force people to medically detransition".
A lot of that section is not clearly related to detransition, but restricting people/children from medically transitioning in the first place I just want to note that in these states minors have already been on trans healthcare. There are extremely rarely provisos to allow those already receiving it to continue, so it's not just stopping them starting but continuing. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good, I agree with the changes. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Rewriting to focus on reviews

As it stands, the article relies on a lot of primary studies and opinion pieces. We should be doing citing reviews directly as much as possible, so I'm creating this section to collate them before starting to rewrite the article based on them. If I miss some, please add them! These were found by google scholar, searching "detransition" in abstracts and toggling for reviews only since 2016.

Caption text
Name Type Author/Year
Prevalence of detransition in persons seeking gender-affirming hormonal treatments: a systematic review Systematic Feigerlova 2024
Prevalence of Regret in Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Systematic Review Systematic Thomas et al 2024
Continuation of Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Individuals: A Systematic Review Systematic Gupta et al 2024
Gender detransition: A critical review of the literature Critical Expósito-Campos 2023
Dynamic Gender Identities and Expressions: Detransition and Affirming Non-linear Gender Pathways Among Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth ? Dolatina et al 2023
Do gender assessments prevent regret in transgender healthcare? A narrative review. Narrative Ashley & McKinnon 2024
Defining Desistance: Exploring Desistance in Transgender and Gender Expansive Youth Through Systematic Literature Review Systematic Karrington 2022

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: